Political Posts

[Red Lion]

5 hours ago, Castanza said:

 

How I plan to ride this one out....Great day to be alive either way!

The dude abides. 

[cubsfan]

I'm truly amazed that you guys would defend Harvard and all the Ivy League behavior.

 

The hatred from the Hamas backed organizations is so blatant.

It's right in your face, and you won't even admit it.

 

Somehow I doubt you'd support these despicable activities against blacks or Indians.

 

Just tells me a lot.

[Parsad]

32 minutes ago, james22 said:

 

Sure, let's.

 

How does a demand that Harvard end its racial discrimination violate the college’s First Amendment rights?

 

https://donsurber.substack.com/p/harvard-welfare-queen

 

I created an endowment at Simon Fraser University in the Chemistry department in my father's name.  I told the university that part of the consideration for the award is community contribution, rather than solely academic success. 

 

My father as an immigrant arriving in Canada in 1964, ended up contributing considerably to the Indian community in Vancouver with the creation of numerous cultural and community centers.  Was my stipulation racist or discriminatory?  You could argue yes, if it affected access to students who had stellar academic results but did nothing in their community or as volunteers.

 

Trump is arguing that.  And the fact that you agree with him, is incredibly sad for some of the best post-secondary institutions in the world.  There are other ways to fight dumb administrators than defunding your strongest institutions!  Trump is the fucking joke who is doing so.  Cheers!

[Parsad]

6 minutes ago, cubsfan said:

I'm truly amazed that you guys would defend Harvard and all the Ivy League behavior.

 

The hatred from the Hamas backed organizations is so blatant.

It's right in your face, and you won't even admit it.

 

Somehow I doubt you'd support these despicable activities against blacks or Indians.

 

Just tells me a lot.

 

 

You think Don Jr got into Wharton, Eric into Georgetown, Ivanka into Penn and Barron into NYU solely on merit?  Money and power had nothing to do with it?  Geez!  Cheers!

[cubsfan]

Why would you ignore the fact that Harvard lost their discrimination lawsuit in the Supreme Court?

 

They haven't changed since the loss. If anything, it's gotten far worse.

 

 

[SharperDingaan]

7 hours ago, Viking said:

Well, this is certainly not going well for anybody - poor, rich, American, non-American. Extreme volatility in financial markets is NEVER a good sign. If it continues something will break. This science experiment is quickly going from bad to worse - the US is starting to learn that moving to a centrally planned economy can be a bitch (it doesn’t work). The problem is how do you put out a fire when you put the arsonist in control? The answer, of course, is you can’t. Once it gets raging, it will probably need to burn itself out (the MAGA crowd is acting like dry kindling). Just ask Jasper, Alberta how well that goes. What a crazy set-up. This shit show is going to make poor American’s better off? Does anyone seriously believe that anymore? Strap in boys and girls, this ride is just getting started. Unbelievable.

 

The whole tariff thing assumes that most nations strike deals with the US in timely fashion, before the US starts seriously suffering from the counter-veiling tariffs. But it seriously blows up if nations drag their feet, or reduce their USD reserves on diminished confidence in US leadership. Canada is as united as it currently is, and doing things that just weren't possible (inter-provincial trade barriers, pipelines, etc.) before, because of Trumps threats; timely deal making is counter productive. Capital is leaving the US (higher bond yields, lower USD), and will accelerate as counter-veiling impacts progressively bite further; timely deal making is counter productive to containing Trump.

 

Drink the cool-aid .... everything works out, and Trump is better than Jesus. Drink weak beer ... and it looks like the US could well devolve into widespread protests, comes this Fall and Winter; not good for markets, and nobody really wants a repeat of the CSN protest song 'Ohio'. Hard to see if you live inside the US petri dish, but a lot more obvious if you have the benefit of living outside of the US.   

 

Obviously we wish the US the best of luck, but we're not confident, and there is a need for prudence.

 

SD

Edited April 17, 2025 by SharperDingaan

[james22]

52 minutes ago, Parsad said:

 

I created an endowment at Simon Fraser University in the Chemistry department in my father's name.  I told the university that part of the consideration for the award is community contribution, rather than solely academic success. 

 

My father as an immigrant arriving in Canada in 1964, ended up contributing considerably to the Indian community in Vancouver with the creation of numerous cultural and community centers.  Was my stipulation racist or discriminatory?  You could argue yes, if it affected access to students who had stellar academic results but did nothing in their community or as volunteers.

 

Trump is arguing that.  And the fact that you agree with him, is incredibly sad for some of the best post-secondary institutions in the world.  There are other ways to fight dumb administrators than defunding your strongest institutions!  Trump is the fucking joke who is doing so.  Cheers!

 

Your money, you get to dictate how it's used.

 

Taxpayer's money cannot discriminate so.

[Cigarbutt]

38 minutes ago, SharperDingaan said:

...Capital is leaving the US (higher bond yields, lower USD), and will accelerate as counter-veiling impacts progressively bite further...

For net capital outflows from the US to occur, a net trade surplus (?) to the world is (mathematically) necessary...

[Dinar]

1 hour ago, Parsad said:

 

 

You think Don Jr got into Wharton, Eric into Georgetown, Ivanka into Penn and Barron into NYU solely on merit?  Money and power had nothing to do with it?  Geez!  Cheers!

I would disagree and here is why:  Stuyvesant High School in NYC admits solely based on results of a standardized test, and with 40% of NYC's population being black, it is only one percent black.  So given that 13% of the US population is black, Harvard should be 1/40 * 13% = one third of one percent black.  Yet, 18% of Class of 2027 at Harvard was black.  So, when objective criteria is used, black people are under-represented by a factor of 40.  When subjective criteria is used, they are over-represented by a factor of 1.4x.  So the only conclusion I can draw is that Harvard discriminates against non-blacks.  

[Viking]

2 hours ago, SharperDingaan said:

 

The whole tariff thing assumes that most nations strike deals with the US in timely fashion, before the US starts seriously suffering from the counter-veiling tariffs. But it seriously blows up if nations drag their feet, or reduce their USD reserves on diminished confidence in US leadership. Canada is as united as it currently is, and doing things that just weren't possible (inter-provincial trade barriers, pipelines, etc.) before, because of Trumps threats; timely deal making is counter productive. Capital is leaving the US (higher bond yields, lower USD), and will accelerate as counter-veiling impacts progressively bite further; timely deal making is counter productive to containing Trump.

 

Drink the cool-aid .... everything works out, and Trump is better than Jesus. Drink weak beer ... and it looks like the US could well devolve into widespread protests, comes this Fall and Winter; not good for markets, and nobody really wants a repeat of the CSN protest song 'Ohio'. Hard to see if you live inside the US petri dish, but a lot more obvious if you have the benefit of living outside of the US.   

 

Obviously we wish the US the best of luck, but we're not confident, and there is a need for prudence.

 

SD

@SharperDingaan , I think what people are missing is Trump can’t be trusted (I am putting it politely). There will never be an actual ‘deal,’ in terms of what people think that means (and how you wrote). Yes, he will do a ‘deal.’ And then when it suits him, he will demand to renegotiate (he will manufacture a reason and the MAGA crowd will buy it hook line and sinker). It will be a constant state of flux for other countries.
 

The USMCA trade deal with Canada and Mexico is a great example. Trump was the one who actually did that deal and it went into effect in 2020. But Trump has now decided a deal is not really a deal. It is just the next stage in him/the US extracting its pound of flesh. Because it can. 
 

It is a completely bizarre way to run a country. It is right out of some third world banana republic (might is right, lies, corruption…).
 

I agree with you. The only way to manage this shit show is to stall and delay. If you negotiate in good faith he will simply view you as weak and keep coming for more. Trump is a predator. He eats. He is never satiated. Welcome to the new USA. (And many Americans wonder why the rest of the world is getting so pissed. They view the T-Rex is the victim in their world.)

Edited April 17, 2025 by Viking

[RichardGibbons]

1 hour ago, Dinar said:

I would disagree and here is why:  Stuyvesant High School in NYC admits solely based on results of a standardized test, and with 40% of NYC's population being black, it is only one percent black.  So given that 13% of the US population is black, Harvard should be 1/40 * 13% = one third of one percent black.  Yet, 18% of Class of 2027 at Harvard was black.  So, when objective criteria is used, black people are under-represented by a factor of 40.  When subjective criteria is used, they are over-represented by a factor of 1.4x.  So the only conclusion I can draw is that Harvard discriminates against non-blacks.  

 

You can draw a different conclusion just by assuming the distribution of black students' results is bimodal. Suppose that the top 10% of students are admitted to Stuyvesant, and the top 0.1% are admitted to Harvard.  Suppose 18% of the top 0.1% are black, but there are basically no black students in the top 10% other than those ones in the top 0.1%.

 

In general, I think it's just a bad idea to assume that differences in outcome are caused by discrimination. (That said, the Harvard one clearly has a discrimination component, because they say it is.)

 

All that aside, it's a really terrible idea for people to go back to the idea that race really should mean something significant or that people should have different rights and responsibilities based on some arbitrary "race" category. 

 

The 20th century showed what a bad idea this was, and I struggle to think of a single nation that maintained the idea of "race should be a significant determinant of your outcomes" that had generally good outcomes for everyone.  (And it's obvious why--we all benefit when others are innovative, productive, and allowed to grow. Hindering people's ability to succeed based on completely arbitrary criteria like race hurts everyone. I benefit when Steve Jobs creates the iPhone and when Satya Nadella builds Microsoft's cloud solution. I don't want either one of them limited by their race.)

[Paarslaars]

35 minutes ago, RichardGibbons said:

In general, I think it's just a bad idea to assume that differences in outcome are caused by discrimination. (That said, the Harvard one clearly has a discrimination component, because they say it is.)

 

All that aside, it's a really terrible idea for people to go back to the idea that race really should mean something significant or that people should have different rights and responsibilities based on some arbitrary "race" category. 

 

On your first part, there must always be a reason for this. Sometimes it's discrimination, at other times there is an unknown variable. Though I agree in the Harvard case it is discrimination, it is even worse for asian students because they dominate the top x% they are harshly discriminated against.

 

On the second point, I agree there should be no difference in rights or responsibilities based on race, that should be based on the individual.

However, let us not kid ourselves about the obvious differences between races.

When all the dogs are behaving nicely and the pit bulls start killing each other, no one is going to claim it is because of 'different economic backgrounds'.  

[Parsad]

3 hours ago, james22 said:

 

Your money, you get to dictate how it's used.

 

Taxpayer's money cannot discriminate so.

 

Taxpayer money comes from the diverse base of taxpayers.  They should be represented.  If the seats are not represented then you need to make adjustments to ensure that every group has proportionate access.  Cheers!

[Parsad]

2 hours ago, Dinar said:

I would disagree and here is why:  Stuyvesant High School in NYC admits solely based on results of a standardized test, and with 40% of NYC's population being black, it is only one percent black.  So given that 13% of the US population is black, Harvard should be 1/40 * 13% = one third of one percent black.  Yet, 18% of Class of 2027 at Harvard was black.  So, when objective criteria is used, black people are under-represented by a factor of 40.  When subjective criteria is used, they are over-represented by a factor of 1.4x.  So the only conclusion I can draw is that Harvard discriminates against non-blacks.  

 

The discrepancy is primarily due to cost and availability of preparatory courses for underprivileged students when writing the specialized entry test.  Same reason Mohnish created Dakshana in India.  Those same students at Dakshana now have the highest entry scores and percentage entry into the IIT's.  Before Dakshana, they would never have been able to get that same education as privileged families.    

 

https://www.wnyc.org/story/black-alumni-stuyvesant-reflect/

 

Cheers!

[Parsad]

31 minutes ago, Paarslaars said:

 

On the second point, I agree there should be no difference in rights or responsibilities based on race, that should be based on the individual.

However, let us not kid ourselves about the obvious differences between races.

When all the dogs are behaving nicely and the pit bulls start killing each other, no one is going to claim it is because of 'different economic backgrounds'.  

 

Do you want to clarify what you mean by this?  

[Sweet]

7 hours ago, John Hjorth said:

 

What do you really mean by posting 'Putin is clever.'?

 

What's about the future of frozen Russian assets in Europe isen't for POTUS to decide.

He is trying to insert a further wedge between the US and EU.  He’s playing to what Trump cares about, investment in the US, and he’s tempting him with a big pile of money.

Scenario: Trump might see the money as a form of payback to America from Europe for underspending on NATO defence.  He might demand that such money is released because it’s an important part of the peace negotiations.  If Europe refuse Putin and Trump might then claim Europe is standing in the way of peace.

 

So basically he’s tempting Trump’s greed.

[Sweet]

43 minutes ago, Parsad said:

 

Taxpayer money comes from the diverse base of taxpayers.  They should be represented.  If the seats are not represented then you need to make adjustments to ensure that every group has proportionate access.  Cheers!

Outcome - discrimination.  

[Paarslaars]

30 minutes ago, Parsad said:

 

Do you want to clarify what you mean by this?  

 

Average IQ by Country 2025

 

I mean that not only 'nurture' plays a part in this discussion, so does nature.  

When certain races are genetically inclined to have lower intelligence (while having other strengths of course), it is natural to see them under represented universities as well as over represented in crime statistics.

 

As mentioned above, you can't use this in how you treat people because statistics say nothing about the individual.

But it might be a useful criteria in immigration policies.

 

 

45 minutes ago, Parsad said:

 

Taxpayer money comes from the diverse base of taxpayers.  They should be represented.  If the seats are not represented then you need to make adjustments to ensure that every group has proportionate access.  Cheers!

 

 

If you're going to make that argument, people will start argumenting that it should be based on the amount of contribution soon.  

Edited April 17, 2025 by Paarslaars

[RichardGibbons]

48 minutes ago, Parsad said:

 

Taxpayer money comes from the diverse base of taxpayers.  They should be represented.  If the seats are not represented then you need to make adjustments to ensure that every group has proportionate access.  Cheers!

 

This is a dangerous argument to make when taxes paid aren't equal. For instance, I wouldn't want to imply that universities should not accept people who don't pay taxes, or that people who pay more taxes should have proportionately more seats.

 

Plus, it's unclear why you'd partition your representation based on arbitrary attributes like race.  Why not IQ? Why not height? Why not hair colour? Why not religion? Why not the mod 10 sum of social security digits? Why not number of generations living in the country? Why not based on the number of people in the family? Why not blood type?

Edited April 17, 2025 by RichardGibbons
Added second paragraph.

[Parsad]

5 minutes ago, RichardGibbons said:

 

This is a dangerous argument to make when taxes paid aren't equal. For instance, I wouldn't want to imply that universities should not accept people who don't pay taxes, or that people who pay more taxes should have proportionately more seats.

 

The tax system taxes citizens based on what is believed to be fair contributions based on income.  Just like every individual is allowed a vote in an election.  no individual gets more or less votes based on the level of tax they pay.  So if the tax system is fair (and that can be argued either way), then the populace should have equal access to the same non-profit institutions based on proportionate representation.  Cheers!

[Parsad]

11 minutes ago, Paarslaars said:

 

Average IQ by Country 2025

 

I mean that not only 'nurture' plays a part in this discussion, so does nature.  

When certain races are genetically inclined to have lower intelligence (while having other strengths of course), it is natural to see them under represented universities as well as over represented in crime statistics.

 

As mentioned above, you can't use this in how you treat people because statistics say nothing about the individual.

But it might be a useful criteria in immigration policies.

 

 

Yeah, that's what I thought you meant.  That's a very fucked up argument.  That's what the British used to say about Indians, Chinese and Blacks.  

[Paarslaars]

13 minutes ago, Parsad said:

 

Yeah, that's what I thought you meant.  That's a very fucked up argument.  That's what the British used to say about Indians, Chinese and Blacks.  

The argument is as fucked up as saying "there are more black people in the NBA because they have a genetic athletic advantage".

The only difference is that as soon as IQ comes into play, for some reason you have to tip toe around it.

 

Not to go further off topic but did the British have a statistically funded basis for their statements?

[Sweet]

34 minutes ago, Paarslaars said:

The argument is as fucked up as saying "there are more black people in the NBA because they have a genetic athletic advantage".

The only difference is that as soon as IQ comes into play, for some reason you have to tip toe around it.

 

Not to go further off topic but did the British have a statistically funded basis for their statements?

There used to be data on this on Great Britain vs Ireland.  The Irish had a lower IQ than those from Great Britain.  The gap was significant at one point, like 10+ IQ points but it’s nearly completely closed.  IQ is malleable and associated with economic development and strongly influenced by culture (like how involved your parents are).
 

There is obviously a genetic component to IQ though and it would be silly to think there isn’t.  It’s controversial subject, not funded well, and I don’t think anybody really knows what drives it.

 

Edited April 17, 2025 by Sweet

[adventurer]

37 minutes ago, Paarslaars said:

The argument is as fucked up as saying "there are more black people in the NBA because they have a genetic athletic advantage".

The only difference is that as soon as IQ comes into play, for some reason you have to tip toe around it.

 

Not to go further off topic but did the British have a statistically funded basis for their statements?

Not sure if you want to go down that path mate. I don´t know the parameters laid out in whatever studies you are referring to (because they matter a lot here). Especially as to how it was measured. IQ is tied to the word "intelligence". But there are several forms of intelligence (social intelligence, analytical intelligence etc.).

 

You are running in danger of terrible generalization to my mind.  

Edited April 17, 2025 by adventurer

[james22]

2 hours ago, Parsad said:

Taxpayer money comes from the diverse base of taxpayers.  They should be represented.  If the seats are not represented then you need to make adjustments to ensure that every group has proportionate access.  Cheers!

 

You agree Conservatives are wildly underrepresented, yes?